User talk:946towguy

September 2013

Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to MacArthur Maze because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi 946towguy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Distribution Structure (Oakland) (October 2)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Distribution Structure (Oakland).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Crispulop (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One's PJs

Have you perhaps conflated "pejorative" and "perjurious" here? -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

(talk) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your edits at Talk:MacArthur Maze rather than continuing to revert war. --Rs chen 7754 07:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits: Under Wikipedia's policies regrading articles titles, it is the common name used by most reliable sources, not the official name. If you hear any traffic report by most of the Bay Area news media, they use the phrase "MacArthur Maze" to refer specifically to the 80/580/880 interchange. Thus, that is what the scope of this article should be. What the official name that is used by Caltrans is irrelevant. Any attempt to move it back to the 980/24 interchange will invariably get reverted back, in grounds of the aforementioned Wikipedia policies. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, But you are incorrect. NOBODY who lived here called 'The Maze' the Macarthur Maze' prior to the mid 1990's. The recent trend seems to be fueled by articles, such as this wikipedia article.

"I am right and you are wrong" is not a valid response: where's your sources? --Rs chen 7754 08:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your sources? All I see are a couple of recent instances of a reporter or spokesperson getting a name wrong. If you want a source of 'Common Name' then I am a source. I have lived in the East Bay for over 40 years and grew up KNOWING the Macarthur Maze as the Macarthur Maze. I grew up knowing the other interchange as 'The Maze'. EVERYBODY I know calls the Macarthur Maze by it's correct name and calls the Distribution Structure 'the Maze' None of the references in the article, which inaccurately name the interchange date to before 2007. It appears that, as a result of incorrect information on Wikipedia and other sites, some have begun mistaking these interchanges.

February 2014

Sandra Fluke

Your recent edit on Sandra Fluke was in violation of WP:NPOV. Please go to the talk page and discuss such edits.Casprings (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! the article was in violation of NPOV and I was correcting the entry. Whatever.. Editing a page to make it neutral and remove bias is apparently a violation of the rules. The article used biased and inaccurate language which was not supported by the sources. It amounted to editorial.

September 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Barack Obama, Sr.. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was properly sourced. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: You should check yourself before reverting edits and making false accusations.

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Barack Obama, Sr. page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm Epicgenius. Your recent edit to the page United States appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Are you sure that adding the reference from 1941 is correct? It may be outdated. Epic Genius (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply, You undid my edits. I believe you were in error. 1)I corrected the information about the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. I used a valid source from 1941, which is commonly cited by judges, but there are numerous sources that state the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in a jurisdiction.

2)I removed a statement which was both dated and biased. The statement was not neutral, and was based on an editorial, which was itself based on old data. The reversion was mainly not in error. You can add the reference back, but the article said basically the same thing before and after your edit. Epic Genius (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the order of the list to the correct order of precedence, with the Sheriff's Department listed first and the local police after because the Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO)of the court's jurisdiction while local police serve the community at large. State level law enforcement should be listed third, because they are generally limited in scope and extensions of the executive branch of the State administration.946towguy (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, you could have made it clear that the sheriff is the most important officer for any given jurisdiction. Epic Genius (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this example, from the National Sheriff's Association website FAQ page? "6. What is the difference between a Sheriff and a Police Chief?

A Sheriff is generally (but not always) the highest, usually elected, law-enforcement officer of a county. Chiefs of Police usually are municipal employees who owe their allegiance to a city." http://www.sheriffs.org/content/faq

I suppose you can add that reference to the article, though you'd have to clarify your edit. Epic Genius (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]